RTI Corner

The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking certain information about payment by SEBI of the amount deposited by the Sahara India, progress of the case pending in the Supreme Court, Different schemes run by Sahara India etc. He filed a First Appeal alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. During the second appeal, the PIO informed that SEBI had submitted 22 status reports before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court is primary holder of the information. However, the information regarding the process of refund and cut-off dates for the processing of the application have been provided to the appellant. The CIC held that PIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the Act.
Comments
The question as to who is the holder of information if a public authority has transferred some documents to another public authority has often been raised. In case of judiciary, the PIO often transfers the RTI application to the Registrar of the Court under section 6(3) of the RTI Act asking the registrar to directly provide the information to the applicant.
Citation: Mohan Sahu v. Security and Exchange Board of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2023/100957; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought certified copy of passport renewal application of his wife Mrs. Shaily Mishra Mittal along with documents submitted for passport renewal. The PIO replied that the Appellant was seeking personal information of a third party exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Appellant submitted before the CIC that he wants to know the marital status indicated by his wife in her passport renewal application as it is his apprehension that false information regarding her marital status has been indicated. He contended that the information sought was not exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act as he was seeking details regarding his legally wedded wife who cannot be considered as a third party as their marriage is presently valid. The CIC held that an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act has been provided as the Appellant is seeking personal information of a third party contained in her passport, disclosure of which is exempted u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The use of RTI Act in quasi-judicial proceedings is not uncommon where the applicant tries to use another channel instead of the regular appellate remedy. Such attempts can provide a meaningful result only in cases where “information” is sought and there are no prescribed ways to obtain it.
Citation: Shri Prem Prakash v. Competition Commission of India, CIC/CPCOI/A/2023/105991; Date of Decision: 28.03.2024
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Appellant stated that the document on the basis of which the Competition Commission arrived at a conclusion in Case 25 of 2020 was not provided. PIO stated that the Appellant was seeking information pertaining to a quasi-judicial decision for which inspection of records was offered as per the CCI (General) Regulations, 2009 which was not availed off by him. PIO further stated that in case the appellant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the decision, he can exhaust the remedy available to him to appeal against the decision before the NCLAT. The CIC held that an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been given by the PIO. The Appellant is at liberty to avail inspection of records as earlier offered to him on a mutually convenient date and time.
Comments
The use of RTI Act in quasi-judicial proceedings is not uncommon where the applicant tries to use another channel instead of the regular appellate remedy. Such attempts can provide a meaningful result only in cases where “information” is sought and there are no prescribed ways to obtain it.
Citation: Shri Prem Prakash v. Competition Commission of India, CIC/CPCOI/A/2023/105991; Date of Decision: 28.03.2024
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com